M6 - Galway City Ring Road [planning decision pending]

timmyntc

KrisW1001 wrote: »

North-west isn't

And neither is north east - north side of the entire road is more land than water tbh

marno21

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1397185775217827845?s=21

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1397185775217827845?s=21

So that would be a NO then.

Chris_5339762

Eamon will never sign this off, its absolute anathema to the Greens. Maybe the next government will, by the time it gets to a ministerial decision it'll be the government after next probably. Waiting for the judicial reviews already.

Pete_Cavan

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Eamon will never sign this off

I doubt he will have to worry about that, more likely either ABP kill it in its tracks or overload it with conditions that it isn't viable. Stupid plan to begin with.

One of two things will happen, neither of which will require him to do anything with the ring road

Either

They approve it, it'll end up in court

Result: He doesn't have to worry about it and can tell GCC to get to implementing more active travel measures in the interim.

Galway city will get bus connects, some bike infrastructure and a few bits of permeability, basically little beyond what is in the GTS at the moment but there might be some small additions.

They reject it

Result: He doesn't have to worry about it and tells GCC their only option is implementing a full suite of active travel measures across the board.

Galway city will get additional bus lanes, fully segregated bike lanes on all arterial routes, enhanced permeability, a full spread of bike share stations all across the city etc etc etc

I know which I'd prefer and which would be better for Galway in the long term

what_traffic

Deleted User wrote: »

One of two things will happen, neither of which will require him to do anything with the ring road

Either

They approve it, it'll end up in court

Result: He doesn't have to worry about it and can tell GCC to get to implementing more active travel measures in the interim.

Galway city will get bus connects, some bike infrastructure and a few bits of permeability, basically little beyond what is in the GTS at the moment but there might be some small additions.

They reject it

Result: He doesn't have to worry about it and tells GCC their only option is implementing a full suite of active travel measures across the board.

Galway city will get additional bus lanes, fully segregated bike lanes on all arterial routes, enhanced permeability, a full spread of bike share stations all across the city etc etc etc

I know which I'd prefer and which would be better for Galway in the long term

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is exactly how it will play out.
He has nothing to worry about at all for his term as Minister in this Government in relation to this part of the Council's "GTS".

The cost of the ring road is definitely going to be more than the 650 million previously quoted and possibly up to 1 billion

https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/122021/city-ring-road-likely-to-cost-1-billion-by-the-time-it-is-eventually-built-td-claims?utm_source=more&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=readmore

All this for a road that won't fix the problem, bonkers stuff, it really is

A full network of high frequency buses and a full network of protected bike lanes would achieve more for the city for a fraction of the cost and could be implemented in half the time.

KrisW1001

The people who cause the traffic congestion wouldn't be seen dead on a bus.

cgcsb

KrisW1001 wrote: »

The people who cause the traffic congestion wouldn't be seen dead on a bus.

As long as the public transport system operates effectively then people who chose to sit in traffic aren't a problem per say, until you get into emissions. An emissions based congestion charge in cities will probably be brought in at some stage.

KrisW1001

The people who choose to sit in traffic are exactly the problem, and it’s often a mistake to say “choose”. In many cases, they live in such sparsely populated suburbs that viable public transport isn’t possible. The solution here isn’t congestion charging, but rather park and ride (with free or subsidised parking).

But that’s only part of the problem. While I might have been overly flippant above, there is definitely a class hierarchy in public transport in this country: we have an attitude that taking the bus is for people who can’t afford a car, and only trams and urban rail are seen as acceptable for the “middle class” to use. Let me say that I am very far into that income bracket, and I know many people who have this prejudice, but I don’t share it.

This is a far cry from the attitude on the continent - I remember more than one occasion where I got on my morning bus to work in Munich and was greeted by the manager of the company I worked in (a multinational technology company with over 300 employees at that site).

timmyntc

KrisW1001 wrote: »

The people who choose to sit in traffic are exactly the problem, and it’s often a mistake to say “choose”. In many cases, they live in such sparsely populated suburbs that viable public transport isn’t possible. The solution here isn’t congestion charging, but rather park and ride (with free or subsidised parking).

But that’s only part of the problem. While I might have been overly flippant above, there is definitely a class hierarchy in public transport in this country: we have an attitude that taking the bus is for people who can’t afford a car, and only trams and urban rail are seen as acceptable for the “middle class” to use. Let me say that I am very far into that income bracket, and I know many people who have this prejudice, but I don’t share it.

This is a far cry from the attitude on the continent - I remember more than one occasion where I got on my morning bus to work in Munich and was greeted by the manager of the company I worked in (a multinational technology company with over 300 employees at that site).

The people who sit in traffic are a problem if they stop everyone else from getting around - but if we had bus lanes or rail lines then this is no longer a problem. If people want to sit in their private cars in congestion while the buses run smoothly, let them at it.

Agree about the prejudice, but those people can waste their lives in traffic if they are too stuck up to get on a bus. their loss.

cgcsb

KrisW1001 wrote: »

The people who choose to sit in traffic are exactly the problem, and it’s often a mistake to say “choose”. In many cases, they live in such sparsely populated suburbs that viable public transport isn’t possible. The solution here isn’t congestion charging, but rather park and ride (with free or subsidised parking).

But that’s only part of the problem. While I might have been overly flippant above, there is definitely a class hierarchy in public transport in this country: we have an attitude that taking the bus is for people who can’t afford a car, and only trams and urban rail are seen as acceptable for the “middle class” to use. Let me say that I am very far into that income bracket, and I know many people who have this prejudice, but I don’t share it.

This is a far cry from the attitude on the continent - I remember more than one occasion where I got on my morning bus to work in Munich and was greeted by the manager of the company I worked in (a multinational technology company with over 300 employees at that site).

I meant so long as public transport walking and cycling is fast and efficient congestion isn't an issue.

Regarding classism and public transport, it's a country thing. Doesn't exist in Dublin and same with similar sized cities on the mainland

donvito99

cgcsb wrote: »

Regarding classism and public transport, it's a country thing. Doesn't exist in Dublin and same with similar sized cities on the mainland

This is true in my experience. The traffic is so bad and people are living so far away that all types will use even the buses.

Everyone from the bum to the barrister will use a bus in Galway if it gets them where they're going quicker.

serfboard

cgcsb wrote: »

Regarding classism and public transport, it's country thing. Doesn't exist in Dublin and same with similar sized cities on the mainland

The comment wasn’t about snobbery and public transport, it was about snobbery and non-rail based public transport, and if you believe that it doesn’t exist in Dublin, you couldn’t be more wrong.

The Green Party, for example, is full of it.

marno21

The IDA are proposing a new building at Parkmore Business Park, TII have made a submission calling it overly car dependent

https://www.galwaydaily.com/business/plans-for-expansion-of-parkmore-ida-business-park/

It looks like its getting tougher and tougher to justify building this road

Call for cycling ‘superhighways’ and less car use to cut transport emissions

Full story at link, below is only an excerpt - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/call-for-cycling-superhighways-and-less-car-use-to-cut-transport-emissions-1.4583185?

The development of “cycle superhighways” in major cities where there is greatly-curtailed private car use, transport-led housing plans and increasing road charges are recommended in a new report by the Oireachtas Climate Action Committee.

Ireland should fundamentally redirect transport policy and apply the internationally recognised “avoid-shift-improve” approach to cutting emissions in the sector, according to its report issued on Thursday.

This approach sets the emphasis “on more radical and long-term policy changes” if the country is to achieve key 2050 targets to reduce damage to the environment. This entails reducing the need for travel and shifting to more environmentally-friendly/sustainable transport modes to reduce emissions, it says.

“Such an approach, if implemented effectively, would allow for the development of sustainable transport systems with limited environmental impacts and make a significant contribution to meeting the targets within the Climate Action Plan,” it concludes.

The avoid-shift-improve approach should be embedded in a revised national planning framework (NPF) and combined with “a stricter requirement for compact growth” in urban areas, it recommends.

The Government has committed to a 51 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2030 and to apply sectoral limits through two five-year carbon budgets but has not yet set how they will be achieved – In a series of public hearings the committee sought the views of experts on how best to cut transport CO2 which accounts for 20 per cent of Ireland’s emissions.

Electric Vehicles (EVs)
Ireland’s approach to reducing carbon emissions for 2030 is heavily reliant on the electrification of vehicles. While this will play a vital role in reducing transport emissions, the report underlines the expert view that “the shift from private car ownership – albeit electric private cars – to public transport must not be undermined by this”, particularly as it will not lead to less congestion, reduce car dependency or decrease road crashes.

It says the Government should use the vehicle registration tax system to promote the purchase of new electric cars with most supports for EVs rather than hybrids. While it was now being accepted EVs will not be the “silver-bullet” solution to Ireland’s transport emissions problem, particularly in relation to our 2030 targets, it highlights that in making cities more liveable, “a rapid shift to zero-emission vehicles – as opposed to low-emission vehicles – would certainly help to achieve this”.

“This is again linked to the need to move away from road construction and improve public transport and active modes [of cycling and walking],” it adds.

Road building
The Government should re-examine current and future road-building projects, especially in light of its national planning framework, “to assess if they should proceed or if their funding should be diverted to projects which promote less carbon-intensive transport” – but it accepts the need to re-direct heavy traffic volumes out of some congested urban areas.

Targets for new housing around cities, towns and villages, seem contrary to the objective of compact growth, it finds. “Such development will drive urban sprawl and dependency on private cars which is at its highest in towns and villages where there are limited public transport options,” the report warns.

Road/congestion charges
The committee advises the Government to examine road charges including congestion charges in urban areas, combined with targets for car-mileage reductions. But it underlines pubic buy-in will be critical and accepts the need for upfront improvements and decent alternatives at the same time as they are being introduced

Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action launches report on reducing carbon emission in transport sector by 51% by 2030

Link - https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/press-centre/press-releases/20210603-joint-committee-on-environment-and-climate-action-launches-report-on-reducing-carbon-emission-in-transport-sector-by-51-by-2030/

The Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action today calls for a review of all planned road construction projects with a view to reallocating funding to sustainable transport schemes, consideration of road charging and mileage reduction targets, accelerated transition to electric vehicles and electrification of commuter rail lines, and an immediate expansion of public transport measures for rural and dispersed communities.

The Committee launched its Report on Reducing Emissions in the Transport Sector by 51% by 2030, the first of a series of sector analyses on how Ireland will meet its target of a 51% reduction in emissions by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050, in line with the Climate Action and Low-Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2020 currently going through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Committee Cathaoirleach Deputy Brian Leddin said: “Ireland has the fourth highest level of transport emissions per capita in Europe and the transport sector is responsible for around 20% of our overall CO₂ emissions, with private cars being the largest contributors to transport emissions. Taking into account projected population growth and, in turn, economic growth in the coming decades, Ireland will face a significant challenge in decarbonisation of the transport sector.”

The key theme to emerged from the Committee meetings and written submissions from stakeholders was that the ‘avoid-shift-improve’ approach to reducing emissions is the internationally recognised standard that should be implemented in order to achieve our targets by 2050. This approach sets the emphasis on more radical and long-term policy changes:

• Avoid – reduce the need for travel;
  
• Shift – move travel to more environmentally-friendly/sustainable modes;
  
• Improve – improve efficiency of transport modes to reduce emissions.

Deputy Leddin said: “Our report seeks to embed the ‘avoid-shift-improve’ approach into our transport and mobility infrastructure planning. Reducing transport demand must be the first and key priority, followed by shifting carbon-intensive journeys to zero carbon modes such as walking and cycling, and by providing sustainable public transport in both rural and urban areas.

“This report challenges the conventional ‘predict and provide’ approach and legacy of poor planning that has induced traffic and car dependency, driven road construction and high greenhouse gas emissions, with their resulting adverse consequences for our economy, our health, our society and our environment.”

The Committee makes a total of 47 conclusions and recommendations across five areas – planning, public transport and active modes, electrification, freight transport and future challenges. The main recommendations are:

• A review of future road construction projects should be conducted, to include an analysis of whether such substantial investment would be better allocated to more sustainable projects such as remote-working hubs and sustainable transport modes;
  
  
• Further exploration be given to the establishment of remote working hubs in towns and villages, including sustainable transport links to these hubs, particularly in less densely populated areas, and that a national target for remote working should be introduced;
  
  
• A policy of road space reallocation away from the private car and towards sustainable transport modes be introduced for cities, towns and villages, in order to induce demand for sustainable transport modes and to reduce capacity for private cars;
  
  
• In light of the evidence from rural public transport projects such as the ‘Every Village, Every Hour’ project in Germany, there should be a significant increase in targeted investment in an immediate expansion of public transport measures for rural and dispersed communities in Ireland, to provide a realistic alternative to travelling by car;
  
  
• The examination of road user charges, including potential targets for car mileage reductions to reduce transport emissions. The reallocation of revenue from such charges to more sustainable alternatives should form part of this examination;
  
  
• Cycling superhighways such as those in Denmark and London should be developed as an alternative travel option for those living outside larger cities. Family-friendly cycling infrastructure should also be introduced;
  
  
• A free public transport system should be costed as an option for encouraging the uptake of public transport in Ireland. The Minister for Transport should consider the benefits and feasibility of the provision of free public transport, based on the experiences in Europe and elsewhere, and roll out initiatives in this respect as soon as possible;
  
  
• To achieve a transition to fully electric, zero-emission Electric Vehicles (EVs), efforts should be made to fully and quicklyequalise the purchase cost of new zero emission EVs with fossil fuel vehicles. Incentives and supports for EV take-up should be reviewed and targeted;
  
  
• Consideration be given to the further electrification of all public transport including commuter rail lines as part of the DART+ programme;
  
  
• An appropriately revised cost-benefit methodology should be applied to a review of current plans for the expansion of rail lines, including commuter lines that have been excluded due to current cost-benefit analysis tools;
  
  
• An appropriately revised cost-benefit methodology should be applied to all transport projects to capture the short- and long-term climate costs and benefits and the potentially excessive weight given to time savings;
  
  
• In order to address emissions in relation to road freight, a central digitalised system for freight logistics in Ireland should be developed which would allow all carriers to work towards ensuring fully loaded journeys, backloading, as well as re-routing and rescheduling to avoid congestion. Measures to encourage use of national and toll roads by freight rather than smaller roads should be considered, which may include flat annual fees for toll roads.

Deputy Leddin concluded: “This report points the way towards how we achieve the necessary reduction in transport emissions through a fundamental change in how we plan and manage a quality and sustainable transport system in Ireland.”

The Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action has 14 Members, nine from the Dáil and five from the Seanad.

The Committee’s Report on Reducing Emissions in the Transport Sector by 51% by 2030 is available on the Oireachtas website.

The report is available here

The report calls out this project specifically as one that may be more beneficial if its cancelled and the monies directed to alternative transport options for Galway city.

Many stakeholders highlighted that decades of poor planning have resulted in significant numbers of low-density communities, most of which have had little, if any, integration of public transport and land use planning. In addition, heavy development of motorway and road networks has imposed car dependency on a significant proportion of the population, with no sustainable alternatives.

Dr. Tadhg O’Mahony outlined that:

“through urban sprawl, our settlement pattern has increased travel distances. At the same time, transport policy directed major investment towards roads and motorways and allowed walking, cycling and public transport to stagnate or decline in comparison.”

In turn, economic growth, particularly following the recent recession, led to an increase in demand for transport and exacerbated the unsustainable use of private cars over public transport.

It has been widely stated that the construction of roads and motorways is inconsistent with the aim to reduce carbon emissions in the transport sector.

Aside from the emissions as a result of the construction process, generally, road schemes result in increased traffic due to the increased road capacity which encourages car dependency and increased driving speeds.

Dr. Lynn Sloman outlined that in an assessment undertaken of the English Department of Transport’s road investment strategy RIS2:

“we found that RIS2 was likely to increase cumulative CO₂ emissions by about 20 megatonnes between now and 2032. That is about 5% of emissions from the strategic road network over the relevant time period. About one-third of the additional emissions are from construction, one-third from increases from high speeds and onethird from induced traffic.”

In exploring this finding, the Committee suggested the need for some road construction in some instances, such as, to redirect heavy volumes of traffic congestion out of towns and villages. While stakeholders agreed that some targeted road construction may be necessary where there is a particular problem, it was re-emphasised that road construction – even in tandem with the electrification of vehicles – is not the best strategy to reduce congestion and will not provide the significant reductions in emissions that is urgently needed. This was highlighted by Mr. Andrew Murphy in relation to the Galway relief road project.

The impact assessment for that project showed that:

“the evidence was pretty clear that building the road would cause more cars to be used in Galway and would make the city more car dependent. Is our vision to have electric buses stuck in traffic behind electric cars? That is what we will get if we pursue both the electrification of vehicles and the construction of more roads.”

Additionally, stakeholders emphasised that the building of new roads is expensive and these budgets could be reallocated and utilised for more sustainable projects.

The Committee agreed that, in order to move away from the current system, planning policy has to be significantly transformed to repair urban sprawl, prevent low-density development and avoid the generation of longer journeys by car. This will be of significance for local and regional areas where strategic planning can work to revitalise towns and villages.

cgcsb

The review is far reaching and it actually seems to spell the end for the proposed 'upgrades' of the M11, M4 and M3. At least that's the latest signals I've been hearing.

Certain road schemes will of course pass the review. All port access motorways and the M20.

Pete_Cavan

cgcsb wrote: »

The review is far reaching and it actually seems to spell the end for the proposed 'upgrades' of the M11, M4 and M3. At least that's the latest signals I've been hearing.

Lets hope so, spending hundreds of millions on wider traffic jams would be criminal when so much more could be done with that money.

Chris_5339762

But will it though? If the M11 was cancelled and say, €1 billion was saved, would it be put into public transport? No, it wouldn't. It would go into the general pot, and the M11 commuters would not see that €1 billion spent on, say a rail solution.

Reuben1210

cgcsb wrote: »

The review is far reaching and it actually seems to spell the end for the proposed 'upgrades' of the M11, M4 and M3. At least that's the latest signals I've been hearing.

Certain road schemes will of course pass the review. All port access motorways and the M20.

How much weight does the report carry with government do you know/have you heard?

cgcsb

Reuben1210 wrote: »

How much weight does the report carry with government do you know/have you heard?

It's not just the report per say but general political feeling, pressure from a more environmentally minded generation of voters, pressure from Europe and actually even the international consultants, the reports are getting harder and harder to write without sounding completely ridiculous. Their reports have to align the particular project with current policy i.e project Ireland 2040 and the climate action bill, which involves a lot of verbal gymnastics. The person writing that a motorway widening scheme supports compact growth and sustainable development is lying to themselves and cheapening their profession. You might think consultants are grand with lying but actually most have an international reputation to maintain.

The bigger schemes also have to be modeled now and every version of the model will tell you these types of schemes will worsen congestion over a 10 year period. The cost benefit analysis process internationally is now taking a serious look at the effective cost of the impact of greenhouse gases.

If you take a look at the consultation documents for the N3 widening scheme (the latest road widening project) on fingal's website, it reads like primary school stuff, rambling, self contradicting etc. This was written by Irish consultant ROD, they couldn't give a fiddlers about integrity, the same consultant that produced the latest iteration of the liffey cycle route, the consultation drawings for which contain a liteny of errors and a complete failure to match current safety and design standards.

This report is more just an official culmination of what's been going on for years but especially the past year the government has got serious cold feet on road schemes and consultation work has been drying up on major schemes.

That being said there's a growing interest in public realm schemes, cycle routes and road schemes that have a safety element, for example bypasses of poor quality national secondary roads and port motorways.

I think the N20 will get a free pass on this and perhaps even dualling of the remaining intercity routes. The slane bypass definitely will on safety grounds.

specialbyte

I think there will be two categories of road projects in future and one of them isn't going to get much attention.

There will be bypass and safety projects like N2 around Slane, N24 around Tipperary Town, or N4 projects that replace treacherous roads. These projects are about saving lives and improving towns and villages.

Then you have projects like the M4, N2 and M11 widening in Dublin to alleviate traffic congestion. These projects are at serious risk of their funding being pulled based on reports like above. Though maybe TII we try and reframe them as safety projects, saying that congested motorways have a higher collision rate, which is true, though widening roads is not as good a climate solution as demand management.

The M20 project has some clear safety and bypass benefits. The current N20 has an awful safety record. Though a lot of the road project could be seen to lead to an increase in long-distance commuter car traffic, which isn't favourable from a climate perspective.

Whereas the M20 might be mixed, I think the writing is on the wall for the Galway City Ring Road. It isn't about safety. It isn't even really about bypassing Galway city. It is about tackling car congestion by providing more space for cars. The purpose of the project doesn't really justify the resulting climate emissions imho.

I suspect if ABP do grant permission we'll see this project dragged into the courts pretty quickly. The environmental groups will highlight how the Galway City Ring Road isn't really compatible with a low carbon emissions future.

cgcsb

If the Galway ring road gets through the planning process, I don't think it'll be funded. It's even less likely than the motorway widening schemes in Dublin because the Galway scheme is so much more expensive per km and ultimately won't have a positive impact. If this report gets taken on board by government then they'll have to look how that amount of money (€600 - €1000)million could completely revolutionise public transport in Galway (and all of the west of Ireland)

Reuben1210

All the above makes sense, but for the medium term, businesses in regional cities want improved connection in order to invest and create jobs. Electrifying rail and two-tracking, and upgrading gauge speed should all be done, but could be even longer in coming than motorway improvements. In Galway specifically, many of the pharma/medical device companies have cited awful traffic and connections as an inhibitor to investment.

While climate is becoming more and more the dominant factor, these big road projects will still be used by electric/hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in future too, and investment and jobs will still be the priority of government.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

If the Galway ring road gets through the planning process, I don't think it'll be funded. It's even less likely than the motorway widening schemes in Dublin because the Galway scheme is so much more expensive per km and ultimately won't have a positive impact. If this report gets taken on board by government then they'll have to look how that amount of money (€600 - €1000)million could completely revolutionise public transport in Galway (and all of the west of Ireland)

Three EV buses can be bought for €1 million or thereabouts. So how many buses could Galway use to provide superb PT? 20 or 30 or 50? 50 buses plus wages plus the support required would be about €100 million. So even without the fare box, the buses cost about 10% the cost of the ring road. Spend a bit on P&R carparks, and there you have it - an alternative.

Would the people of Galway prefer a dual carriage car park, or a P&R car park?

Aontachtoir

Sam Russell wrote: »

Three EV buses can be bought for €1 million or thereabouts. So how many buses could Galway use to provide superb PT? 20 or 30 or 50? 50 buses plus wages plus the support required would be about €100 million. So even without the fare box, the buses cost about 10% the cost of the ring road. Spend a bit on P&R carparks, and there you have it - an alternative.

Would the people of Galway prefer a dual carriage car park, or a P&R car park?

I'm not really sure that's the choice on offer. It seems unlikely that buying a fleet of electric buses is going to reduce traffic enough for them to run rapidly, reliably, and efficiently on Galway city streets, unless additional road infrastructure is put in place to allow the traffic that is already clogging the streets to flow elsewhere. Has the research been done to show that buying X buses will lead to a Y% decrease in congestion on city streets? Or are we just hoping that people will be willing to ride these buses in such extraordinary numbers that the Galway traffic will melt away enough to make buses as reliable and convenient as personal cars? If not, then the people of Galway will just be adding a few new electric buses to their car park.

I don't know what the people of Galway would prefer, of course. I know that I would prefer a transport infrastructure that lets me quickly and reliably travel in the comfort, privacy, and security of my own car from my front door to work and back or to anywhere else in the city, rain or shine, in dark dreary December or bright sunny July. An option to cycling safely if the weather is fine would be great, but is less important than being able to drive where I want, when I want. I suspect many people in Galway would feel similarly.

Bobeagleburger

Tons of buses would be great. However, they aren't efficient without proper bus lanes. Design those and you have the model.

cgcsb

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I'm not really sure that's the choice on offer. It seems unlikely that buying a fleet of electric buses is going to reduce traffic enough for them to run rapidly, reliably, and efficiently on Galway city streets, unless additional road infrastructure is put in place to allow the traffic that is already clogging the streets to flow elsewhere. Has the research been done to show that buying X buses will lead to a Y% decrease in congestion on city streets? Or are we just hoping that people will be willing to ride these buses in such extraordinary numbers that the Galway traffic will melt away enough to make buses as reliable and convenient as personal cars? If not, then the people of Galway will just be adding a few new electric buses to their car park.

I don't know what the people of Galway would prefer, of course. I know that I would prefer a transport infrastructure that lets me quickly and reliably travel in the comfort, privacy, and security of my own car from my front door to work and back or to anywhere else in the city, rain or shine, in dark dreary December or bright sunny July. An option to cycling safely if the weather is fine would be great, but is less important than being able to drive where I want, when I want. I suspect many people in Galway would feel similarly.

This can be addressed by just building the bus connects routes as planned. There's no need to build infrastructure for cars elsewhere to accommodate the existing flow of traffic because the goal is to reduce the existing flow of traffic not move it elsewhere. You might prefer driving but that's not going to be catered to going forward, how can it be. There will still be driving and congestion but people will be able to move faster and reliably with sustainable modes.